G.R. No. L-12149 September 30, 1960 2.

HAS THE CAUSE OF ACTION BY PLAINTIFF-

APPELLANT ALREADY PRECSRIBED? - No
HEIRS OF EMILIO CANDELARIA, ETC., plaintiff-appellant,
vs.LUISA ROMERO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS: HELD:
APPELLANT'S ALLEGATIONS: 1. IMPLIED TRUST
Ester Candelaria filed a complaint in her own behalf and in Where property is taken by a person under an agreement to
representation of the other alleged heirs of Emilio Candelaria, hold it for, or convey it to another or the grantor, a resulting or
alleging in substance implied trust arises in favor of the person for whose benefit the
property was intended. This rule, which has been incorporated
- that sometime prior to 1917 Emilio and his
in the new Civil Code in Art. 1453 thereof, is founded upon
brother Lucas Candelaria bought each a lot in the
equity.
Solokan Subdivision on installment basis;
An implied trust arises where a person purchases land with his
- Lucas paid the first two installments
own money and takes a conveyance thereof in the name of
corresponding to his lot, but faced with the
another. In such a case, the property is held on a resulting trust
inability of meeting the subsequent installments
in favor of the one furnishing the consideration for the transfer,
because of sickness which caused him to be
unless a different intention or understanding appears. The trust
bedridden, he sold his interest therein to his
which results under such circumstances does not arise from
brother Emilio, who then reimbursed him the
contract or agreement of the parties, but from the facts and
amount he had already paid,
circumstances, that is to say, it results because of equity and
- Lucas thereafter continued payment of the arises by implication or operation of law.
remaining installments until the whole purchase
In the present case, the complaint expressly alleges that
price had been fully satisfied;
although Lucas had no more interest over the lot, the
- although Lucas had no more interest over the subsequent payments made by Emilio until fully paid were
lot, the subsequent payments made by Emilio made in the name of Lucas, with the understanding that the
until fully paid were made in the name of Lucas, necessary documents of transfer will be made later, the reason
with the understanding that the necessary that the transaction being brother to brother."
documents of transfer will be made later, the
From this allegation, it is apparent that Emilio who furnished
reason that the transaction being from brother to
the consideration, intended to obtain a beneficial interest in the
brother";
property in question. Having supplied the purchase money, it
- in 1918 a TCT for said lot was issued by the may naturally be presumed that he intended the purchase for
register of deeds of Manila in the name of "Lucas his own benefit. Indeed, it is evident from the allegation in the
Candelaria married to Luisa Romero"; complaint that the property in question was acquired by Lucas
Candelaria under circumstances which show it was conveyed to
- Ester further alleged that Lucas held the title to him on the faith of his intention to hold it for, or convey it to
said lot merely in trust for Emilio and that this the grantor, the plaintiff's predecessor in interest.
fact was acknowledged not only by him but also
by the defendants (his heirs) on several 2. NO LACHES IN THIS CASE
occasions;
Constructive or implied trusts may be barred by lapse of time.
- that Lucas' possession of the lot was merely The rule in such trusts is that laches constitutes a bar to actions
tolerated by Emilio and his heirs; to enforce the trust, and repudiation is not required, unless
there is a concealment of the facts giving rise to the trust.
- from the time Emilio bought the lot from his
brother, Lucas had been collecting all its rents for Continuous recognition of a resulting trust, however, precludes
his own use as financial aid to him as a brother any defense of laches in a suit to declare and enforce the trust.
in view of the fact that he was bedridden without
The beneficiary of a resulting trust may, therefore, without
any means of livelihood and with several children
prejudice to his right to enforce the trust, prefer the trust to
to support, although from 1926, when Emilio was
persist and demand no conveyance from the trustee.
confined at the Culion Leper Colony up to his
death, Lucas had been giving part of the rents to It being alleged in the complaint that Lucas held the title to the
Fortunata Bautista, the second wife of Emilio, in lot in question merely in trust for Emilio and that this fact was
accordance with the latter's wishes; acknowledged not only by him but also by his heirs, herein
defendants — which allegation is hypothetically admitted —
- Lucas died in August, 1942, survived by the
plaintiff's action is NOT barred by lapse of time. On the
present defendants, who are his spouse Luisa
contrary, the interest of justice would be better served if
Romero and several children; and that said
plaintiff -appellant and her alleged co-heirs were to be given an
defendants are still in possession of the lot,
opportunity to be heard and allowed to present proof in support
having refused to reconvey it to plaintiff despite
of their claim.
repeated demands.
DISPOSITION: Order of dismissal appealed from is hereby
APPELLEE'S ANSWER:
reversed and the case remanded to the court a quo for further
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that proceedings.
plaintiff's cause of action is unenforceable under the new Civil
Code and that the action has already prescribed.
- The lower court upheld the motion, plaintiff took this appeal.
TRIAL COURT: Dismissed the complaint.
- held that an express and not an implied trust was created as
may be gleaned from the facts alleged in the complaint, which
is unenforceable without any writing, and that since TCT No.
9584 covering the land in question had been issued to Lucas
Candelaria way-back in 1918 or 38 years before the filing of the
complaint, the action has already prescribed.
ISSUE:
1. WHAT TRUST WAS CREATED IN THIS CASE? -
Implied Trust